Quantum Mechanics

I canceled my subscription in part because of that. They still bug me periodically to reup.

I liked the old format. Graphically simple, with elegant articles actually written by prominent scientists. It almost seemed like a journal and many professional scientists read it to keep aware of events in fields distant from their own.

Then the magazine was sold to some big corporate publisher, a staff of professional writers was brought on board and the thing was repositioned in the 'Discover' magazine space, apparently in hopes of increasing its circulation among the general public.

Solid content remains, but now it's kind of obscured by lots of visually captivating fluff.

 

Same

I'm the question guy. I have no answers. Just guesses.

 

Check out James Cook University http://www.jcu.edu.au/school/mathphys/astronomy/masters.shtml
They offer reasonably priced certificates, masters and doctorates in astronomy by DL.
One of the occasional contibutors to degreeinfo is taking the doctorate.

 

Same

Yeah, it's a rag, but free. And I can explore their references. I also get Discover free. I would not pay for either. In a few years, there will be nothing but pictures and adds.

 

Other theories

As a kid I attended lectures by Fred Hoyle, a steady state universe advocate, and since then I have been interested in astronomy. Fred Hoyle later authored some pretty good science fiction books. (Fred used to say that most science fiction books were really science fantasy books.)

The vast majority of discussion on the origin of the universe centers around the "Big Bang Theory" which is largely based on visual observations and discoveries. However as more physicists look at data from newer observational techniques alternate theories are being proposed that also satisfy known knowledge without any fudge factors including a "plasma universe" and a "cyclic universe."

Some physicists claim that they cannot get articles published because most journals are tied to the "big Bang theory."

 

Scientists like to have some light reading too!

I have long subscribed to New Scientist. You won't get much science out of it, but it keeps you up to date on current topics, and it has job ads, etc. I like its irreverent touch.

I know others who subscribe to Science News or The Scientist. The latter is really only for biologists.

Of course, Science and Nature are still broadly focused. But it's hard to keep up with them - each is over 100 pages per week.

 

Incidentally, a neighbor of mine was Senior Editor of Physics Today.

Perhaps that's what physicists consider light reading.

I've never looked at it myself.

 

I agree that New Scientist is a great weekly magazine for $51 per year.
http://www.newscientist.com/home.ns
I got my first job by an add in the NS classifieds.

 

Re: Same

No, Clay. Nosborne wasn´t talking about the subatomic level.

Anyone knows how the second law can be vulnerated?

 

Same

JLV,
I certainaly don't. That's one of the questions where theories abound. I look at quantum field. I have difficulty sticking with one, without allowing another to creep in. I'm no physicist, just a hobbyist. With a lot of questions. Hell, I'm stuck on nucleons and pions. The nonlinear o model. It's Greek to me.

Then the pizza guy knocks, and I'm backtracking with new thoughts, causing me to dig a deeper hole. Wish I could just say it is magic, but that's the easy way out.

And, I got the wrong pizza, which I hate anyhow.

I can list theories of theories, causing a meltdown.

If I'm not physically active, I try to stay mentally active. And both are slowing down. Lucky I never got into the field, I'd be a blob now.

And, don't things revert to subatomic eventually? Disturbing the vacuum? A quantum leak? A distance m-1 (squared)? D(x) decays exponentially with spacelike seperation? I'm just working equations from one of Zee's books.

 

There is a point in which both quantum and Newton mechanics seem to coincide. Perhaps this could be a good point to start. But I find hard to believe that the second law fails. And then again, what the hell do I know anyway?

 

Clay,

I know this is probably a stupid question, but based on the things you've written/asked here, I would be remiss not to at least ask: Have you gotten up to speed on string theory yet?

 

Same

Gergg,
The Superstring Theory is pretty heavy for me. The concept of 26 dimensions, wormholes, parallel universes, really taxes my poor math abilities. But it's does present an answer entrophy in this dimension er....ah...dahmention. SST and CT are the pets now, with their offspring. I'm at the back of the line, playing catch-up.

I'm sure, that by the time (next century) I begin to grasp the math, several others will move to the forefront. And I will have reached a form of entrophy. Being self-taught has been a challenge, a PIA, and fun.

This is as close as I can get, to an adrenaline fix, sitting on my ass. I bore easily, both ways.

 

Same

Gregg,
Sorry I didn't really answer your question. Yes I'm aware of the concepts, no I cannot do the math.

 

Sorry to babble stupidly again (can't help myself; occupational hazard of being a lawyer, I guess) but didn't they whittle the 26 dimensions down to ten?

 

Same

Nosborne48,
ST postulates 26, 16 rolled-up geometrically, leaving ten for ST. Leading to hyperspace.Witten is the "word" on ST. The problem, for me, is that I'll be involved in something and get and idea, that produces something similar to a dissosciative fugue, that causes me to be perceived an AH. Which is probably true. Now I'm babbling.

The ST folks have used Abbot's "Flatland" to exemplify their quandary. Lack of imagination suppresses scientific thought.

Entanglement or Einstein's "Spooky action" will enable quantum computers. This is teleportation of information not atoms. And is real, on the atomic scale. But what is information? What is it made of? Now I'm screwed. Another question to ponder.

Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos" is written in a way most folks can grasp. And deals specifically with ST, without all the math. I would suggest it. Easy read, couple hours.

See how easy it is to get sidetracked.

 

Same

Sorry for the delay. Bowflex work/thought/confusion.

 

Same

Gregg,
Back a few. An answer to entrophy, not an answer entrophy. Sorry for deletion.

 

Same

JVL,
Getting back to the entrophy question, do things work the same when super-large as when large? I doubt it, but can only make assumptions. Which mean zip.

 

Same

JLV (apologize).